Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932335Ab0FOTRh (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Jun 2010 15:17:37 -0400 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([18.85.46.34]:33939 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754035Ab0FOTRg (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Jun 2010 15:17:36 -0400 Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 15:17:16 -0400 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Rik van Riel Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Andrea Arcangeli , Mel Gorman , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Dave Chinner , Chris Mason , Nick Piggin Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/6] Do not call ->writepage[s] from direct reclaim and use a_ops->writepages() where possible Message-ID: <20100615191716.GA6778@infradead.org> References: <20100615141122.GA27893@infradead.org> <20100615142219.GE28052@random.random> <20100615144342.GA3339@infradead.org> <20100615150850.GF28052@random.random> <20100615152526.GA3468@infradead.org> <20100615154516.GG28052@random.random> <20100615162600.GA9910@infradead.org> <4C17AF2D.2060904@redhat.com> <20100615165423.GA16868@infradead.org> <4C17D0C5.9030203@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4C17D0C5.9030203@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17) X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by bombadil.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 974 Lines: 23 On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 03:13:09PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote: > Why? How about because you know the stack is not big enough > to have the XFS call path on it twice? :) > > Isn't the whole purpose of this patch series to prevent writepage > from being called by the VM, when invoked from a deep callstack > like xfs writepage? It's not invoked from xfs writepage, but from xfs_file_aio_write via generic_file_buffered_write. Which isn't actually an all that deep callstack, just en example of one that's alread bad enough to overflow the stack. > That sounds a lot like simply wanting to not have GFP_FS... There's no point in sprinkling random GFP_NOFS flags. It's not just the filesystem code that uses a lot of stack. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/